Log in

Opinion

Dee Walia of Brookfield prays during a community vigil last month to honor the victims of the Newtown, Conn., school shooting. The vigil was sponsored by the Sikh religious community at the Sikh Religious Society of Wisconsin in Brookfield.

While we strive for a lively and vigorous debate of the issues, we do not tolerate name calling, foul language or other inappropriate behavior. Please see our discussion guidelines and terms of use for more information.

While we do our best to moderate comments, we do not screen comments before they are posted. If you see a comment that violates our guidelines, please use the "Report Abuse" link to notify us of the issue.

Meanwhile, extremist Tea Party radical Kim Simac, up in Eagle River, WI, tweets (right after the Sandy Hook massacre): "We bought toy guns for grandkids for Christmas we believe in being prepared. (toy) gun control http://ww.today.com/moms/after-newtown-some-parents-impose-toy-gun-control-1C7657757 … via @TODAYMoms" Utterly tone deaf and in direct contrast to the feelings of a MAJORITY of mothers throughout this nation!!! Looks like we have another "survivalist" preparing for the "End Times". Creepy.

"Chief Justice Warren Burger, when asked for his opinion on the Second Amendment, said it was '...one of the greatest pieces of fraud, I repeat the word "fraud," on the American public by special interest groups that I’ve ever seen in my life time. The real purpose of the Second Amendment was to ensure that state armies--the militias-- would be maintained for the defense of the state. The very language of the Second Amendment refutes any argument that it was intended to guarantee every citizen an unfettered right to any kind of weapon he or she desires.'"

So Burger was saying that the framers of the constitution committed fraud?

Think about it for a moment Fred. The framers went to great lenghts to ensure that the constitution did not bestow any rights on the state. All of the rights in the constitution are individual rights bestowed on THE PEOPLE.

Why would they go to such lengths to not only refuse to grant the state any rights, but actually put limitations and restrictions on the state by telling the states that they shall not do this or that?

Any militia would necessarily be a or state construct, correct? Why would the founders in only this one instance tie a requirement to a state function to an individual right?

As the majority opinion in Heller explains, the term "the right of the people" is used in only 2 other places in the constitution. Wouldn't that indicate that it has a significant meaning? It does not say "the right of the people that are in a militia" does it?

outoftowner, I think you misinterpreted the comment by Fred and Justice Burger. The Fraud is by the special interest group (NRA) use of the amendment and the misinterpretation that the 'militia' was intended to be individuals. The militia at the time was intended to be the militia of colonial times and of colonies not states, but most analogous to state troopers/ county sheriffs now.

Besides, If we consider it an Individual persons right, that is fine, but Do the typical individual gun owners think their stash of weapons, no matter how big their basement arsenal is, can really save them from the government and even allow them to take over the government today if they think it is corrupt? I know the military assault weapons can kill dozens of people quickly (this has been proven too many times outside of war), but our federal governments military (and CIA, FBI, state, and local police forces) can subdue any individual. Back in the day, the days the Constitution was drafted, a well armed individual would have been a force to be reckoned with and may have held out in the territories, but with our present armed forces (police and military), those days of individual invulnerability are long gone.

For the record, I am For the right to bear arms including guns, but we all know the constitution did not make this an unrestricted right. Assault weapons and large clips are not needed for any sporting reason. They in fact are very Unsportsmanlike in my view. We all know the Reason they were created, to kill as many walking, talking people as quickly as possible. There is no reason anyone outside of military should need to get off more than 10 shots in a few seconds time for self defense.

I never said Need was the requirement in every instance. No one needs any gun at all except in the very rare instance that their life is directly and immediately threatened, and even then it wouldn't be an absolute need unless it was Known the threat would follow through. But with only desire for something (and not need), then that makes something unneeded, unnecessary. When the item in fact is made mainly to kill many people quickly, such as a bomb, nerve gas, or assault weapons with large clips, there should either be need or Very strict regulation.

@FarWest - Nobody said hicap mags were used to hunt! (DNR has "laws" against that) but , they are used quite often in practice , shooting matches and competitions , such as 3-gun. In fact , they ARE "necessary" to win with.

outoftowner, that's a good set of questions. I'm not sure what exactly this "militia" is, that is, if it is a state construct, or perhaps something less official. Far West Sider's comments were interesting on that as well.

I brought up the quote because I recently discovered it, and that it seemed to be in line with Dhariwal's argument here that the latest Court decisions were (supposedly) something of an anomaly.

BTW, LTO, that is about the same argument for high-capacity magazines as I've found -- that they're useful in practice, matches and competitions. I think that there may be a possibility that those can remain in manufacture and on sale, but only to people with some kind of license or permit, with those activities in mind. That would be one step towards ensuring their continued availability in this country, anyway.

It will be looked at as a time study, we who set manufacturing processes up do lots of these studies to accurately predict labor , material usages, predictions and savings.

Response times by the police range from 2 minutes at Aurora was due to them being lucky enough to be near, most times 10 to 12 minutes from first call.

Adam Lanza tried to open a locked door, couldn’t, so he shot the glass out to gain entry upon which time the principal and another person came from the office and confronted Lanza who then killed them both. Total elapsed time, approx 1 minute.

Then Lanza walked down the hallway to the bathroom 15 seconds and then the 1st kinder-garden classroom about 150 ft away, max time to do so, 25 seconds, where he killed most of the victims.

Lanza then walked across the hall 25 ft away, max time 15 seconds.

Whereupon he killed the remaining victims.

Professional shooter can change a magazine in 1.4 seconds, someone familiar with the weapon, which Adam was, can do so in 3.0 seconds.

Since the time from the first shooting to the time the police entered the building and approached the shooter was right at 12 minutes whereupon he shot himself, explain again how the 10 round magazines would have made a difference when there was 8.417 minutes of spare time for the shooter to screw up and take his time?

Violent Encounters – A study of Felonious Assaults on our nations law enforcement officers USDOJ, FBI, National Institute of Justice August 2006

You should read the National Sciences Foundation report from 2004 on gun control laws, a study that was formed by the anti gun Clinton Administration so just like the Ludgwig & Cooke study noted below, doesn't prove any causality theory, much less any effect of gun control laws on violent crime.

An Updated Assessment of the Federal Assault Weapons Ban: Impacts on Gun Markets and Gun Violence, 1994-2003, National Institute of Justice, June 2004

All while in 2010 FBI UCR, we see deaths committed by illegal use of hands, fists, feet, blunt objects and knives accounted over 3,259 deaths, each by themselves accounting for far more deaths than the anti’s mythical boogeyman, the semi-auto rifle banned because they look evil.

The anti’s really should get going on registering and banning hands, fist, feet, all type of blunt objects and all knives as clearly they are a more serious threat in the real world.

Oh make sure you add clenching ones fist and giving someone the bird as brandishing a lethal weapon!

Why say GUN violence must end? Don’t you mean VIOLENCE altogether? It has been statistically proven that open gun laws REDUCE violence as in the case of Washington, D.C. where since gun restrictions were lifted the murder rate has dropped to a fraction of its former level.

Making tougher gun laws only affects law-abiding citizens-—NOT criminals. So when guns are restricted, only criminals have guns. Advertising a building or a community as a “gun-free zone” alerts criminals that they have nothing to fear from those within. If, however, any one of those citizens, teachers, or worshippers COULD BE ARMED, statistics show the crime in these areas drops substantially.

The main reason, though, for the Constitutional directive for citizens to bear arms is to protect themselves from the depredations of a tyrannical government…and only a tyrannical government would attempt to disarm its citizens.

If you don’t understand this, read the following article from the Russian Pravda titled "America never give up your guns."

From this article: "For those of us fighting for our traditional rights, the US 2nd Amendment is a rare light in an ever darkening room." From english.pravda.ru

Dr. Dhariwal is absolutely correct. Gun ownership is a public health hazard, and should be viewed no different than smoking and drunk driving. All public health studies have shown the dangers of guns in the home, carried on person whether concealed or not. I highly recommend reading the research.

As a society, must re-examine our culture of valorized aggression and narcissistic "entitlement." (i.e. defending the absolute interpretation of the 2nd amendment).

We would have more information how to control gun violence if the NRA had not pressured Congress to withdraw funding for gun violence research. This is information we must have to develop sound policies.

Looking at gun violence as a public health problem doesn't necessarily mean banning guns (Dr. Dhariwal's opinion notwithstanding). Just from looking at the titles of FDR's cited studies here, there's clearly a lot more to discuss with regard to behavioral issues than with guns.

Real doctors treat the root cause, not the symptoms, which means anyone addressing violence with limitng guns as a cure, is nothing but a quack who would have their license revoked!

That and real doctors recognize that there are always good results, and side effects.

Oh you want data, hey lets review the following.

You know, the government database showing in 2008 that 1.38 mil violent crimes were reported and that of those 381,000 involved a firearm, 15% of times shots are fired, corrobborated by multiple police firearm discharge reports, go google em, you will see, if you dare!

Firearm Use by Offenders, Bureau of Justice Statistics, November 2001 USDOJ National Victimization Report 2008

You know, the government agency sub annual report showing in 2008 alone that 4.8 mil violent crimes were not reported.

Oh wait, what’s this, annual firearm discharge reports that show the police only hit their targets 15% of the time, such a common trend.

Uh just an fyi there were approximately 12,252 murders and 70,000 injuries by firearms in 2008.

So using the standard shooting percentages, and hit percentages provided by all that government data these quacks cant refute, lets calculate using just a small portion of the anti's own calculations, how much money self defense has saved the US per year, and we will only concentrate on the law abiding to start with.

Even though the anti’s wont admit that even felons, who are citizens, have the right to defend themselves.

Now we know that of 381,000 violent crimes in 2008, there were 12,252 murders, and 70,000 injuries, but to be fair since suicide is 90% fatal, will remove the 1,854 injuries caused by suicides, and assuming the same rate of injuries due to accidental firearms discharges of 3,660 just to be fair 64,486 injuries total.

So 80,396 deaths and injuries in 2008 out of 381,000 incidents = 1.5% deaths 17.9% injuries.

Doctors are far more dangerous then guns. Dr. Dhariwai should start in her own profession first where more people are killed by medical errors then are killed with guns. Also, more children will die in a car, drown in a pool, or choke on food than they will by firearms. She really needs to prioritize her concerns if this is really about human life and kids instead of just being about guns.